XPost: sci.med.cardiology, uk.legal, uk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife   
   From: MEjercit@HotMail.com   
      
   HeartDoc Andrew wrote:   
   > Michael Ejercito wrote:   
   >> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:   
   >>> Michael Ejercito wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> https://archive.vn/jW1LE   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> NHS wants to sedate Down’s syndrome patient for Covid jab against   
   >>>> mother’s will   
   >>>> Mother of patient describes ‘covert’ spiking of drinks as   
   ‘tantamount to   
   >>>> assault’ and breach of human rights   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The patient is the subject of a series of Court of Protection orders   
   >>>> because he 'lacks capacity' and cannot make decisions for himself   
   >>>> The patient is the subject of a series of Court of Protection orders   
   >>>> because he ‘lacks capacity’ and cannot make decisions for himself   
   >>>> Steve Bird   
   >>>> 28 September 2024 4:26pm   
   >>>> A mother has launched a legal battle to stop the state from spiking her   
   >>>> Down’s syndrome son’s drinks with sedatives so he can be jabbed with   
   the   
   >>>> Covid vaccine, The Telegraph can reveal.   
   >>>> Cups of tea and glasses of orange juice have been secretly laced with   
   >>>> sedatives to subdue the man, in his thirties, so he can be given the   
   >>>> vaccine and booster jabs.   
   >>>> But his mother now is planning to prosecute her local NHS integrated   
   >>>> care board (ICB) for “forced vaccination”, which she claims is   
   >>>> “tantamount to assault” and a breach of his human rights.   
   >>>> Adam, whose name has been changed because he cannot be identified, is   
   >>>> the subject of a series of Court of Protection orders because he “lacks   
   >>>> capacity” and cannot make decisions for himself.   
   >>>> His ICB, which also cannot be named, obtained a court order in 2021   
   >>>> allowing the “covert” spiking so he can be given the AstraZeneca   
   vaccine.   
   >>>> The court concluded the vaccine was in Adam’s “best interests”   
   because   
   >>>> he is in a “clinical risk group” due to his learning disabilities,   
   >>>> autism, Down’s syndrome and obesity.   
   >>>> The method of sedating him via a drink was chosen because it “avoids the   
   >>>> use of restraint or physical force” and overcomes Adam’s needle   
   phobia,   
   >>>> legal papers seen by The Telegraph explain.   
   >>>> Catherine, his mother, is fighting a fresh application made by the ICB   
   >>>> to allow care home staff to administer sedation and vaccines without   
   >>>> having to seek court approval each time the Government issues new   
   >>>> vaccine guidance.   
   >>>> ‘The pandemic is over’   
   >>>> “The pandemic is over and Covid is now treated as little more than the   
   >>>> common cold,” his mother, who is in her 60s and from the home counties,   
   >>>> said. “But my son is being categorised as at the same risk as those with   
   >>>> life-threatening diseases.   
   >>>> “It is terrifying that this is happening years after the pandemic and at   
   >>>> a time when we are not required to wear masks or socially distance.   
   >>>> “As Adam’s mother, I know what is best for him. I think this excessive   
   >>>> state intervention is unfair, particularly now the Covid landscape has   
   >>>> changed so drastically.”   
   >>>> The mother and her legal team have set up a crowdfunding campaign called   
   >>>> “Stop Sedate-to-Vaccinate” to raise funds for her to fight the NHS   
   >>>> application for “forced medical treatments”.   
   >>>> A court previously heard that Adam struggled to follow social distancing   
   >>>> rules because he liked to “hug” people.   
   >>>> His carers, including his doctor and a solicitor assigned by the court   
   >>>> to represent him, believe he needs the vaccine because Government   
   >>>> guidelines classify him as vulnerable due to his “chronic neurological   
   >>>> disease”.   
   >>>> Benefits outweigh risks   
   >>>> The 2021 ruling by Judge Brown concluded that although Adam “finds   
   >>>> health interventions distressing” the benefits of the vaccine “far   
   >>>> outweigh the risks”.   
   >>>> But his mother, a devout Christian, claims administering the vaccine   
   >>>> “against his will” has meant he “will not be able to trust people   
   and   
   >>>> his life will be filled with fear”, adding that it amounts “to   
   unlawful   
   >>>> use of restraint.”   
   >>>> She also claims he has lost weight and “is healthier than the average   
   >>>> person” who “hardly gets a cold” and has already had Covid which   
   was mild.   
   >>>> The judge concluded she was in no position to rule on the efficacy of   
   >>>> the vaccine or some of the other theories about it which were based on   
   >>>> “extraordinary and dangerous misinformation”.   
   >>>> In her ruling allowing the initial vaccination, Judge Brown wrote how   
   >>>> she understood “genuine and legitimate concern from some, about the   
   >>>> administering of a new vaccine to combat a new virus”, adding how some   
   >>>> people “legitimately and in good faith, raise questions about its   
   >>>> efficacy and possible side effects.”   
   >>>> ‘Waste of public money’   
   >>>> The mother’s lawyer, Stephen Jackson of Jackson Osborne Solicitors, said   
   >>>> Adam’s four years of good health without vaccination since the pandemic   
   >>>> “speaks volumes for his natural immune system.”   
   >>>> “This is a scandalous waste of public money. The Joint Committee on   
   >>>> Vaccination and Immunisation assesses they need to jab approximately   
   >>>> 10,500 people like Adam to avoid just one non-severe visit to the   
   hospital.   
   >>>> “At £25 a shot, that’s £262,000 that could be better spent, leave   
   aside   
   >>>> the cost of these proceedings.”   
   >>>> A spokesman for the UK Health Security Agency, the government body   
   >>>> responsible for public health protection, said it would be   
   >>>> “inappropriate” to comment on a specific case.   
   >>>> He added: “Vaccination is voluntary on the basis of informed consent.   
   >>>> Where an adult is unable to consent for themselves it is a matter for   
   >>>> their doctors to consider their best interests in collaboration with   
   >>>> relatives.”   
   >>>> The integrated care board, which insists Adam’s sedation and vaccination   
   >>>> are legal, declined to comment “because of patient confidentiality”.   
   >>>> The case will be heard at the Court of Protection in November.   
   >>>> Inside the secret sedation plot   
   >>>> As a “thank you” for having a mug of breakfast tea and a glass of   
   orange   
   >>>> juice brought into his room, Adam invariably hugged the staff he trusts   
   >>>> so implicitly at his care home.   
   >>>> Unbeknown to him, on five separate occasions over the last 16 months   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)